0daymaster last edited by
Hi. I've recently had issues with Google's public DNS servers due to outages on Google's end. I use 184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11 to monitor my gateways for failover. This wreaked havoc with connections bouncing between gateways. How hard would it be to implement multiple checks per gateway? IE, monitor 18.104.22.168 , 22.214.171.124 on gw1 and 126.96.36.199 , 188.8.131.52 on GW2? Even better would be an HTTP check on a well known website like Cloudflare.
MikroTik has no plans to support VTI so there are situations where I have to run GRE/IPsec between pfSense and RouterOS devices. PfSense has no ability to control the GRE parameters (numbered vs unnumbered interface), so I can't use OSPF to distribute routes to RouterOS devices. I'm okay with using static routing and all but it would be awesome if pfSense could support weighted static routes and/or support unnumbered GRE tunnels. Thanks.
There is already a feature request open for multiple targets. There is no ETA on when it might be implemented, however.
@0daymaster having the same issue, I did a quick & dirty implementation of multiple ping targets for 2.4.4-p3. I can give you the patches if you want. However there is dpinger to pach/recompile aside to support multiple targets, which can be quite tedious if you're not familiar with freebsd and if you need to cross-compile (for arm in my case). With the patch, dpinger will ping each host as often as it was before and will report an average on all hosts. So, if you set 4 hosts, it will generate 4x more pings in the same time, and if one host is down, it will report 25% packet loss.
As a side note, it has been a surprise to see that dpinger is using threads with shared variables without any kind of thread synchronisation. If there is any issue there (and I think there is), using X hosts will multiply by X the likelihood to trigger it.